The Ethics of the College Admission Matching Market
Source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/brennanbarnard/2019/09/05/the-department-of-justice-aims-to-unravel-the-college-admission-market/#180b1e2b40e5
While the college admission process is an obvious example of a matching market, it is much more complex than initially meets the eye. When assessing valuations, students need to take a wide range of things into account. Cost of attendance, campus culture, strength of a specific program and proximity to home are a few of the many factors that can influence where applicants matriculate. Simultaneously, colleges and universities need to ensure the accepted students will be adding value to the communities they join. Even after being matched, either party may become motivated to seek a different match. This idea is central to two of guidelines currently being reviewed by the department of justice.
Currently, colleges are unable to recruit students who have already committed to attending another school. The author of the article draws a comparison between this idea and “courting women in a bridal shop.” While this is an extreme perspective to take, it is certainly morally questionable for institutions to attempt to recruit students who have already committed elsewhere. On the other hand, this would allow colleges to bolster a weak recruitment class and potentially give some students access to a better education. I am personally one of the exceptions to this rule as it currently stands. Having been wait listed at Cornell, I submitted my deposit to another university. While Cornell did not actively “recruit” me during this period, being accepted from the wait list allowed me to attend a better school with stronger financial aid; therefore the value I’d receive from attending Cornell surpassed that of the other university. While my case is different from the proposed change it does speak volumes to the potential benefits for both sides.
The other guideline under review has to do with the recruitment of students who already attend another university. These students have been matched with their university and only they can initiate “transfer inquiries.” While I see the potential downside in “marketing to students insecurities” with ads such as “Are you halfway through your first semester of college and questioning your decision? If so, we have a deal for you!” there is a lot of potential benefit for these students as well. It seems a bit one sided for only students to be able to start this process and many are likely deterred by how daunting it appears. If universities are given the ability to actively recruit current students, they will be more able to asses their aptitude for higher education and may be opening the door for many more students to assign a higher valuation to their education.
The author of the article provides a wide range of insights as to why these changes could actually hurt many students, however when looking at this issue strictly from the perspective of maximizing social welfare for the students in these networks, it may actually be beneficial for them to be recruited. This increased competition will also encourage colleges to improve student benefits in order to retain them, further increasing the welfare of said students.